Petitions In Legal Jungle

Long Fight In Store As Objections Break New Ground

August 26, 1986|By Joseph R. Tybor, Legal affairs writer.

In filing their objections Monday against a referendum effort that could hinder Mayor Harold Washington`s chances for re-election, the mayor`s strategists have put together a carefully conceived, multipronged attack designed to leave open as many available legal options as possible.

But the formal filing of objections is only the beginning of what promises to be a time-consuming, divisive and confusing process. Several of the issues raised by the petitions and the objections to them have never before come before the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners or Illinois courts.

The objections filed by Washington`s supporters questioned more than half of the nearly 196,000 signatures collected by supporters of a referendum on the question of a nonpartisan mayoral election; 142,824 signatures are required by state law to put the issue on the ballot in November.

The next step will occur Sept. 3 when the three-member city elections board is scheduled to meet to devise procedures for ruling on the objections. It is uncertain what procedures might be selected be cause the board never before has dealt with signatures involving a referendum or so many signatures. Usually, the board decides challenges to a candidate`s petitions and the number of signatures required are far fewer. For a candidate for alderman, for example, anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500 signatures might be required.

In past challenges, however, the board usually has selected a hearing officer, a lawyer who is not a member of the board, to hear evidence and write a report that the board may accept or reject. It is uncertain whether a hearing officer or the full board will hear evidence in this case.

Ordinarily, challenges must be made to specific signatures contained on the petitions, although the mayor`s camp is ready to argue that the petitions are so infected with fraud that the elections board has a duty to examine all the signatures--not just those to which objections were filed Monday.

Challenges to specific signatures are checked one at a time by comparing the signatures on the petitions with those on voter registration cards kept in precinct binders. Both sides may have a ``watcher`` available while a city clerk makes this check and, with challenges, this process could take weeks.

Other signatures may be challenged for other reasons. Again each side may bring in witnesses to testify at the hearing. At the end of this process, the hearing officer makes a recommendation and the board votes to accept or reject it. If there is no hearing officer, the elections board determines if enough signatures have been proved invalid to throw the referendum off the ballot.

At the end of this process, either side can challenge the board`s findings first in Cook County Circuit Court and then to the Illinois Appellate Court and the state Supreme Court. Conceivably, though unlikely, any appeal could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, Washington`s backers have attacked the petitions not only on grounds that the signatures were obtained fraudulently, but on several legal grounds, including an argument that the petitions impinge the home-rule powers granted to Chicago under the Illinois Constitution. Under those powers, as interpreted by the Washington forces, only the city council may initiate a proposed change in the method of electing a mayor. A referendum is still required but only the city council may put it on the ballot, according to the legal theory.

Also, Thomas Johnson, the attorney who spearheaded the challenge, is considering filing an action to remove members of the board if they show bias against Washington in the hearing process. He is also considering filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging the proposed referendum violates the Voting Rights Act by seeking to interfere with the re-election of a black mayor.